C182 vs Cherokee 6

[john]

I recently got my high performance checkout and have taken a 182Q for
a couple of X-C flights. I love the ability to put four people in the
plane and still climb out at 500 ft/min at over 100 knots. If it
wasn't for the additional costs, I would never fly an C172 again.

On both flights, the cruise speed was around 125 knots. Fuel burn was
around 12 gph. I can rent a Cherokee 6/260 for the same price ($95
dry). I doubt I would need the extra seats, but I was wondering what
the average cruise speed and fuel burn would be. I have rented a
Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
same engine, (8-9 vs 6) I know the Cherokee's larger engine should
mean a larger fuel burn, but would the additional speed make up for
it?

thanks

John

[kontiki]

john wrote:
> I recently got my high performance checkout and have taken a 182Q for
> a couple of X-C flights. I love the ability to put four people in the
> plane and still climb out at 500 ft/min at over 100 knots. If it
> wasn't for the additional costs, I would never fly an C172 again.
>
> On both flights, the cruise speed was around 125 knots. Fuel burn was
> around 12 gph. I can rent a Cherokee 6/260 for the same price ($95
> dry). I doubt I would need the extra seats, but I was wondering what
> the average cruise speed and fuel burn would be. I have rented a
> Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
> same engine, (8-9 vs 6) I know the Cherokee's larger engine should
> mean a larger fuel burn, but would the additional speed make up for
> it?
>
> thanks
>
> John

What size engine in the Cherokee 6? 260 or 300? Generally
the 260 will net you about 135 Kts in a 6 at about 14G/hr.
(this can be imporoved at optimum altitude/power settings and leaning).

Either way its about a wash... (I am suprised you are getting 12gph
for the 182... the ones I've flown burn more than that). All
things being equal I'd rather have speed.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

john wrote:
> I recently got my high performance checkout and have taken a 182Q for
> a couple of X-C flights. I love the ability to put four people in the
> plane and still climb out at 500 ft/min at over 100 knots. If it
> wasn't for the additional costs, I would never fly an C172 again.
>
> On both flights, the cruise speed was around 125 knots. Fuel burn was
> around 12 gph. I can rent a Cherokee 6/260 for the same price ($95
> dry). I doubt I would need the extra seats, but I was wondering what
> the average cruise speed and fuel burn would be. I have rented a
> Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
> same engine, (8-9 vs 6) I know the Cherokee's larger engine should
> mean a larger fuel burn, but would the additional speed make up for
> it?
>
> thanks
>
> John

A 6-300 will cruise about 167 Knots and burn about 16gph. I think a 260
is a little under 140 knots at about 13 or 14gph. I've flown both but
the 260 was a long time ago.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> A 6-300 will cruise about 167 Knots and burn about 16gph. I think a 260
> is a little under 140 knots at about 13 or 14gph. I've flown both but
> the 260 was a long time ago.


I think you've been overly optomistic with the speed figure for a Cherokee Six
with the 300 hp engine. I used to figure about 145-150 knots with a full load,
which is the only way I ever flew one. Your fuel figures are about right. The
sweet spot for the Six was between 6,000 - 8,000 feet.

Your 167 knots could be achieved with a Lance... which is just a Six with
retractable gear.

If the length of available runway was a factor there's no contest; take the
C-182. If load was the factor, take the Six. The PA-32 cabin in all its forms
is more spacious than the C-182s and basically if you can get the doors closed
with the load balanced correctly, it's gonna fly. The Six carries more than the
Lance, and the 260 HP version (oddly enough) has the greatest useful load of any
of them.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> A 6-300 will cruise about 167 Knots and burn about 16gph. I think a 260
>> is a little under 140 knots at about 13 or 14gph. I've flown both but
>> the 260 was a long time ago.
>
>
> I think you've been overly optomistic with the speed figure for a Cherokee Six
> with the 300 hp engine. I used to figure about 145-150 knots with a full load,
> which is the only way I ever flew one. Your fuel figures are about right. The
> sweet spot for the Six was between 6,000 - 8,000 feet.

When I was regularly flying a 300 it was usually me two pax. No extra
load. Probably about 650lbs total. AS was almost always just above 165.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

john wrote:
> I have rented a
>Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
>same engine, (8-9 vs 6) .

This is more a function of the pilot's choice in altitude, power setting
and mixture control than anything else. Since they have the same engine,
they should burn about the same amount a fuel at identical power settings
(about 8gph at 75% power is normal for both types). If you fly one fast and
low, 9 gph is not unheard of. Slow and high, and 6 gph is doable.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Steve Foley]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7e4f78808f995@uwe...
> john wrote:
> > I have rented a
> >Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
> >same engine, (8-9 vs 6) .
>
> This is more a function of the pilot's choice in altitude, power setting
> and mixture control than anything else. Since they have the same engine,
> they should burn about the same amount a fuel at identical power settings
> (about 8gph at 75% power is normal for both types). If you fly one fast
and
> low, 9 gph is not unheard of. Slow and high, and 6 gph is doable.
>

Back in 2001, I flew my 140 to Oshkosh along with 2 Warriors and 2 Skyhawks.
All had Lycomong O320 160HP engines. When we stopped for fuel, we all took
almost the exact same amount.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> When I was regularly flying a 300 it was usually me two pax. No extra
> load. Probably about 650lbs total. AS was almost always just above 165.


Had I known it was costing me 15-20 knots, I'd have made those other *******s
walk. <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> When I was regularly flying a 300 it was usually me two pax. No extra
>> load. Probably about 650lbs total. AS was almost always just above 165.
>
>
> Had I known it was costing me 15-20 knots, I'd have made those other *******s
> walk. <G>
>
>
>


As well you should. I just remembered that the 300 I was flying did have
some speed mods so some of that 15-20 knot difference probably came from
there.

[john]

I was surprised at the difference on fuel consumtion. I have tried to
fly both of them at the same altitude, RPM and fuel/air mixture.
Over several flights the consumption stays about the same. I asked an
instructor about it and he mentioned he can't get the high fuel
consumption down either. It doesn't matter whether it was in the
lower or higher altitudes (up to 7500 feet), and aggressive leaning,
the Cherokee doesn't have the fuel economy of the Cessna. The engine
had been rebuilt recently, (less than 200 hours), but I'm not sure
that has anything to do with it.

On Jan 16, 2:21*pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> john wrote:
> > *I have rented a
> >Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
> >same engine, (8-9 vs 6) .
>
> * This is more a function of the pilot's choice in altitude, power setting
> and mixture control than anything else. *Since they have the same engine,
> they should burn about the same amount a fuel at identical power settings
> (about 8gph at 75% power is normal for both types). * If you fly one fast and
> low, 9 gph is not unheard of. *Slow and high, and 6 gph is doable.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[[email protected]]

> *If it
> wasn't for the additional costs, I would never fly an C172 again.
>

The flying club I belong to has an R182 RG. It goes for $145 an hour.
Is that about normal?

High?

Low?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
john > wrote:

> I was surprised at the difference on fuel consumtion. I have tried to
> fly both of them at the same altitude, RPM and fuel/air mixture.
> Over several flights the consumption stays about the same. I asked an
> instructor about it and he mentioned he can't get the high fuel
> consumption down either. It doesn't matter whether it was in the
> lower or higher altitudes (up to 7500 feet), and aggressive leaning,
> the Cherokee doesn't have the fuel economy of the Cessna. The engine
> had been rebuilt recently, (less than 200 hours), but I'm not sure
> that has anything to do with it.

If the 140's tach is reading low, then it can have a higher than expected
fuel burn. (fwiw - even with the 160hp conversion on my 140, I don't
see 9gph, usually it's around 7 gph).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"kontiki" wrote:

> (I am suprised you are getting 12gph
> for the 182... the ones I've flown burn more than that).

That's about right for 125 KTAS.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

> wrote:

> The flying club I belong to has an R182 RG. It goes for $145 an hour.
> Is that about normal?

Wet? Sounds like the low side of normal.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Kyle Boatright]

Does the 160 HP conversion come with a repitched prop? Unless it does, your
fuel burn at a given RPM should actually go down because the engine has a
higher compression ratio and produces power more efficiently.

KB
"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> john > wrote:
>
>> I was surprised at the difference on fuel consumtion. I have tried to
>> fly both of them at the same altitude, RPM and fuel/air mixture.
>> Over several flights the consumption stays about the same. I asked an
>> instructor about it and he mentioned he can't get the high fuel
>> consumption down either. It doesn't matter whether it was in the
>> lower or higher altitudes (up to 7500 feet), and aggressive leaning,
>> the Cherokee doesn't have the fuel economy of the Cessna. The engine
>> had been rebuilt recently, (less than 200 hours), but I'm not sure
>> that has anything to do with it.
>
> If the 140's tach is reading low, then it can have a higher than expected
> fuel burn. (fwiw - even with the 160hp conversion on my 140, I don't
> see 9gph, usually it's around 7 gph).
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

> Does the 160 HP conversion come with a repitched prop? Unless it does, your
> fuel burn at a given RPM should actually go down because the engine has a
> higher compression ratio and produces power more efficiently.

I did repitch my prop to make it the same engine/prop as a warrior II.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dane Spearing]

In article >,
John Smith > wrote:
>In article >,
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>
>> A 6-300 will cruise about 167 Knots and burn about 16gph. I think a 260
>> is a little under 140 knots at about 13 or 14gph. I've flown both but
>> the 260 was a long time ago.
>
>I think you mean mph not kts.
>I fly a 6-300 and I flight plan and get 135 kts.
>16 to 18 gph will depend on the engine installation, how high and how
>lean you like to fly. I have flown at 10,500 leaned to 12 gph but GS was
>only 95 kts.

*nod* I've been flying a 6-300 for about 4 years now, and get 135 kts
at 15 gph below 8,000 ft, and around 13.5 - 14 gph at 10,500.

-- Dane

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

John Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>
>> A 6-300 will cruise about 167 Knots and burn about 16gph. I think a 260
>> is a little under 140 knots at about 13 or 14gph. I've flown both but
>> the 260 was a long time ago.
>
> I think you mean mph not kts.
> I fly a 6-300 and I flight plan and get 135 kts.
> 16 to 18 gph will depend on the engine installation, how high and how
> lean you like to fly. I have flown at 10,500 leaned to 12 gph but GS was
> only 95 kts.


Yes I did mean MPH. Sorry.